This, but unironically.
Me when 2001: A Space Odyssey
I fucking hate Kubrick. Every movie feels cold and soulless, and they move slower than a snail on lean.
They’re definitely slow burns that challenge you.
Glad to know I’m not the only one who walks away from a Kubrick movie feeling like they just had a conversation with the most boring person on the planet.
2001 was genuinely terrible, absolutely nothing was explained during the move. If I hadn’t read the book beforehand, I’d have had no idea what was going on from roughly half way onwards.
Can’t hear the dialog | Christopher Nolan
This comment is the thread killer.
All the comments here jumping to talk about how wrong this is, I gotta ask: haven’t you seen a bad movie?
Art films or blockbusters (or rather, attempts at blockbusters), plenty of movies just suck. Many bad movies will have endless amounts of people trying to change the narrative with the words on the right column.
There are also plenty of films where people just absolutely dont get it
My favorite example is annihilation
And here is an excellent video about it: https://youtu.be/URo66iLNEZw
The last two might make sense, the others don’t. But regardless, what is boring to one might not be to others. Some watch movies for visual spectacle and beautiful shots, others for deep, well written stories and sentimentality, strong emotion well portrayed, for instance. Preference is not necessarily an objective measure of quality, is what I’m saying, and that’s okay. That’s why you find some critic that watches movies for the same reasons and then try not to miss the movies he also enjoyed…
Or maybe all art house films get described this way when, like any other art form, plenty of them just suck.
Sometimes a movie just sucks and won’t accept that it sucks.
But I love David Lynch
Movies are made to tell stories that the directors and the producers feel inspired to tell. And unless they are a Marvel or DC movie, they aren’t always meant to appeal to every audience member, and it’s childish to think that movies should always cater to your every whim-- especially when people are so goddamn quick to judge things others worked really hard on so goddamn harshly.
And before the “but mah money, tho!” shit-- that’s fucking capitalism, and not unique to movies.
Not every movie is going to be to your taste, and that’s cool. What’s not cool is shitting on a movie just because you didn’t like it or it didn’t make sense to you.
Reviews are meant to help you choose which movies you want to bother watching. Using the terms in the green column is helpful in giving the reader a sense of what to expect from a movie while avoiding a negative personal impression.
The red column is very reflective of modern online critiques:
Harsh. Impulsive. Thoughtless. Black & white.
Often made without fully engaging with whatever is being critiqued:
“I haven’t watched the movie, but based on the trailer I bet it’s trash.”
“I hate Darren Aronofsky movies because they don’t explain what is happening and they’re stupid.”
“I heard this movie was great, but I watched it and it sucked. Therefore, everyone else is wrong.”
That isn’t an incorrect critique of Aronofsky. His shit really doesn’t hold up after the critics stop climbing over each other to laud his obtuse cinematography and incoherent plots as genius.
But can we still shit on Michael Bay?
I think blatant cash grabs are fair game for harsh criticism.
